General admits to secret air war

So, now we have this general admitting that the war began long before Bush got his congressional approval - under the guise of enforcing the No Fly Zones. Add that to the list of impeachable offenses.

General Admits to Secret Air War
By Michael Smith
The Sunday Times UK

Sunday 26 June 2005

The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started.

The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

I'm not going to completely discount this, but why, if true, would Iraq have been silent about this in the UN? No middle eastern country has ever hesitated to point out anything America does which could be seen as wrong in some sense of the word, yet Iraq was silent about a war being waged on their land, illegally? The weapons inspectors and Blix also kept quiet about it.

The claim is that over 600 bombs were dropped on almost 400 targets under guise of protecting the no-fly zone. If the were SAMs or other AA sites, I could understand why Iraq would keep quiet, but the article doesn't describe what the targets were, only that they were carefully selected. It just doesn't seem plausable to me with the information on hand.

Here are some more sources:

The Smoking Bullet in the Smoking Gun
by JEREMY SCAHILL

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.
www.democracynow.org...

Relatives of some troops killed in Iraq seek hearings on Downing Street memo

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, June 17, 2005

WASHINGTON — Several parents of soldiers killed in Iraq visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday to ask for congressional hearings on the Downing Street memo, which one mother called President Bush’s “Watergate.”

Critics say the document, which contains minutes from a meeting in July 2002 between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and top aides, shows that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and ignored evidence that showed the country had no weapons of mass destruction.

“Military action was now seen as inevitable,” the memo reads. “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
www.estripes.com...

"Secret" Air Base for Iraq War started prior 9-11

It has long been accepted knowledge that the Bush Administration was working feverishly towards regime change in Iraq during the 18-month period between 9-11 and the official start of the war in March of 2003. The Downing St Minutes confirmed that the Administration was set on a path to war at least as early as mid-summer of 2002. The accounts of Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke verified that Iraq was a front burner issue for the Administration from the very first day, and only intensified after the attacks. Yet finding hard evidence to prove that planning for the war in Iraq was taking place prior to 9-11 has been hard to find. A look at the building of Al Udied can provide that evidence.
www.mydd.com...

Forgive me if I more or less play devil's advocate here, but how is invoking the war powers act multiple times upon a country an impeachable offense?

The argument can be made that there may have been appropriate cessations and seperate motives for any attacks over that 9 month period which would have technically made those operations separate consecutive applications of War Powers- IF that was even necessary given the President's mandate to enforce the terms of surrender from 1992, which Saddam has violated repeatedly. Is there any chance in anyone's mind that the president may have had a mandate via congressional ratification of the terms of surrender from the gulf war??

Just stirring the pot What kind of non-partisan conservative would I be if I didn't take shots at the new penchant for impeachment which both parties have acquired. People new what they were talking about when they said that the attempt to boot Clinton for scoring was going to change take the political landscape in a quite lamentable way.

(and yes, it is possible to be a non-partisan conservative. I don't pledge my vote to any party- they have to earn it by representing my interests.)

Vagabond,
The actions that we now knew our government to take were illegal, basically. It was in preparation to invade Iraq in the spring... or whenever they could push the world into it.

YOu know what this whole thing has been? A sad definition of the relationship between George W. Bush and his father. His father was supremely successful in every endeavor. His son, though, has sadly turned out to be the complete opposite of his father.

There were no WMD. We all know that now, beyond a shadow of a doubt. This invasion was envisioned and planned before 9-11 even. This adminstration should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. A member or two of the cabal should be tried for treason and handed over to the International Criminal Court. I say that as a formerly staunch opponent of the ICC.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Vagabond,
The actions that we now knew our government to take were illegal, basically. It was in preparation to invade Iraq in the spring... or whenever they could push the world into it.

Yes, but is that, in and of itself, impeachable? There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam Hussien did not abide by the terms of surrender. He tested the no fly zones repeatedly, he expelled inspectors (and why the hell did he do that if there was nothing to hide?), and his military has attempted to target US and British aircraft in the no fly zones.

There were no WMD. We all know that now, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A minor point of correction- there were no WMD recovered. If he had destroyed them in complaince with his surrender he could have proven it and saved his butt. Those weapons went to one of four places, and I will list them in order of likelihood.
1. Syria.
2. The Tigris River.
3. The Euphrates River.
4. Iran.

We knew he had them because dear old Ronnie Reagan gave them to him. Unfortunately he couldn't remember that in 2002 so he was really no help in the leadup to the war.
We know he still had them in the gulf war because he used them on the 24th Naval Mobile Construction Battalion in Al Jubayl, Saudi Arabia. www.mold-help.org...
We know he still had them afterwards because he wouldn't cooperate with UN inspectors (in clear violation of his surrender).

The fallback point for your position is that they weren't the real reason for the invasion. This is quite possible, but can't entirely be proven either. The question still remains as to whether or not Bush thought for some reason, WMD or other, that attacking Saddam was good for America. This is vitally important, as I explain below.

This invasion was envisioned and planned before 9-11 even. This adminstration should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. A member or two of the cabal should be tried for treason and handed over to the International Criminal Court. I say that as a formerly staunch opponent of the ICC.

The first thing I want to say is that I'll be right back in my funny green clothes the minute any foreigner dares attempt to sit in judgement of an elected US official- I don't care if I'm fighting for Fuhrer Bush or Comrade Kerry. This is a free and independent country and we take out our own garbage.

Next, I grant you that this invasion, and that of Afghanistan, were planned well before 9/11, probably before the election. I'll grant you as a logical conclusion from that point that George Bush has lied about his intentions. I'll even agree that the national security reasons for deposing Saddam Hussien were LESS than they were when George H.W. Bush agreed not to do it back in the first war.

FDR planned to take us to war before Pearl Harbor. He was already arming the allies, allowing US military servicemen to be released to volunteer in foreign militaries, and quite possibly originated the idea of letting a prospective Japanese attack through so that we'd have justification. Hindsight being 20/20, we all know that FDR did the right thing for America's security by finding a way into a fight that Americans didn't see any reason to get into. So what we see here is whether or not history proves a man right can determine whether his deceptions are lauded or cursed. The History Channel actually aired a tribute to FDR saying he "showed us the way by keeping us in the dark"! While I find it ridiculous on its face, I have no quarrel with what he did.

So the question here, in my opinion, is this: Are we going to impeach every president we ever have, the first time he makes a horrible decision? Lying and manipulating the public are in fact often a lamentable but necessary part of implementing policy. I submit to you that we only complain when we don't like the results and that this proves the illegitimacy of claiming deception in and of itself to be impeachable.

In my opinion, IF a single assumption can hold water, that assumption being that Bush honestly believed removing Saddam was good for America, then an attempt to impeach him over Iraq is basically an impeachment based on a failed policy rather than purely on misconduct. Does the constitution allow for impeachment on the grounds of failed policy?

For the record, to hell with Bush, but all the same I don't care for the precedent that an impeachment sets. We need to live down the ugly legacy of what was tried against Clinton, not nuture it into something that pops up everytime things go badly.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yes, but is that, in and of itself, impeachable?

The president of the United States lied (in effect) under oath to the American people and to our elected officials - on national television, (16 words in SotU address - Niger accusation). Because of his testimony the congress supposedly bought it and gave their ok for the campaign against Iraq. His sources and documentation were fraudulent. Bush officials knew that. That constitutes impeachment, from where I'm sitting.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam Hussien did not abide by the terms of surrender. He tested the no fly zones repeatedly, he expelled inspectors (and why the hell did he do that if there was nothing to hide?), and his military has attempted to target US and British aircraft in the no fly zones.

Because of our access via the No-Fly zones and our will to enforce provisions in the terms of surrender, Saddam Hussein was NO threat to the United States. He could not make a move without us being all over him. So the very idea of WMD being in his possession was simply preposterous to begin with.

A minor point of correction- there were no WMD recovered. If he had destroyed them in complaince with his surrender he could have proven it and saved his butt.

I know sometimes the truth ain't sexy as reality, but for the record, he and the inspectors destroyed those weapons that the west gave him, after Desert Storm. Scott Ritter and other credible sources determine that by 1998 Iraq was clean of any viable WMD.

The fallback point for your position is that they weren't the real reason for the invasion. This is quite possible, but can't entirely be proven either.

Look into the fact that Saddam switched his oil currency to the Euro in 2000. That's the best place to start for a rational and plausible REAL explanation for the invasion (Third phase of the Gulf War). The other place to look is straight into PNAC. There you will find your final reason.

The question still remains as to whether or not Bush thought for some reason, WMD or other, that attacking Saddam was good for America.

If you think Dubya has ever given you or me an ounce of thought, I got some beachfront property for ya.

So the question here, in my opinion, is this: Are we going to impeach every president we ever have, the first time he makes a horrible decision? Lying and manipulating the public are in fact often a lamentable but necessary part of implementing policy.

Causing the death and destruction on the scales Bush is tipping, based on outright LIES, should be punishable.

If you lost someone you loved dearly b/c he/she believed in lie, how would you feel?




[edit on 7/8/05 by EastCoastKid]

At any time we could have taken action against Saddam because of his refusal to live up to the agreements that stopped the first war. This being the case, softening the jerk up for the attack is hardly an impeachable offense.

As far as the chem/bio agents and weapons, we know for a darned-good fact that he had them. He used them against his own countrymen, as well as the Iranians. WE know he refused an unfettered inspection of his facilities, and thought that playing shell games was cute. WE also know that Bush gave the demon-posessed creature months to pass whatever he had to Iran or Syria. All we know for a fact is that they weren't there when we finally went there.

Had the U.N. moved on the monster years ago, as they should've, the people there would've been much better off. Instead, certain powerful European countries in the U.N. profited of the misery of the Iraqi people. Let's gripe about the true animals, huh?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
At any time we could have taken action against Saddam because of his refusal to live up to the agreements that stopped the first war. This being the case, softening the jerk up for the attack is hardly an impeachable offense.

It is if you lie and mislead. If you lie and mislead that means the actions taken are circumventing laws in place. It's on the record. In that respect, Bush lied.

As far as the chem/bio agents and weapons, we know for a darned-good fact that he had them.

Like I've said before, those chem/bio stores he may have had were useless. They have a shelf life. His were useless past the late '90's.

He used them against his own countrymen, as well as the Iranians.

And the Iranians killed a lot of Iraqis with Mustard Gas. Where is the outrage on that count? The western media completely blacks that part out because it doesn't fit well with the propaganda regimen. If you're going to point out what Saddam did during a war, then point out who supplied him with those horrific weapons and point out what was equally inflicted upon his forces. Iran was equally brutal. (And, at that time our leaders knew full well those weapons were being employed. It didn't bother them then.)

WE know he refused an unfettered inspection of his facilities, andthought that playing shell games was cute.

That is a media-induced and re-enforced lie. By '98, Saddam was defanged. I will give him props though, he bluffed the region and fooled the great United States. And what leader, sitting atop the world's second largest reserves of oil, wouldn't bluff like that. Saddam and his reserves were one of the world's greatest targets.

Lying and misleading?
The fact still remains, under the U.N.'s own words, the attack could have, and should have taken place long before it did. That fact is still there, whether or not you believe Bush intentionally deceived us. The actions of the "allies" are still deceptive and ruthless i nthe face of all the people who suffered for their profit.
Hussein still had the capabilty to manufacture more agents, and there was no evidence that he was not. He refused to allow anyone to know otherwise, in regard to verification.
Ritter, when he last left Iraq, claimed there was still agents and manufacturing capabilities there, and then, without being back, changed his tune. Many of us believe it was changed because of politics. He later fell off the radar screen due to his own personal indescretions.

It would seemthat Hussein fooled a great many politicians in this country, both Dems and Reps alike. He also fooled otehr goverernments. Even Russia, while still saying they wouldn't have helped us in light of the facts, agreed he was in violation and we weren't technically wrong for doing so.

The Kurds; did they use mustard gas, too? Why is that a media induced and reinforced lie? Is it because it goes against the desire to hate Bush? I seem to have an enviable position, as I do not like any of the politicians and view them all with contempt, but I do not always believe that everything is a great conspiracy. Some things are needed to be done. I do, however, try and see how "they" will benefit in the long run.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

But this is exactly my point. Clinton's impeachment was a petty partisan tactic designed to overwhelm the American public with controversy- whether credible or not- in order to create a desire for change- just to get stupid petty partisan crap out of the news. It worked beautifully. The congress, which to the average uninformed American is essentially an annonymous collective of nobodies, stigmatized the Clinton administration with an image of petty partisanship not even of their own making, perhaps most classically defined by the dispute over the definition of the word "is".
America needs to put this sort of petty crap in the past- live it down as quickly as possible, or it will be 50 years before any president can serve to terms without the word "impeachment" coming up for one reason or another.
We have to realize what a heavy issue impeachment is. Impeachment is our constitutional failsafe against revolution. Bush is incredibly uinpopular (even I'll be glad when he's gone). He may very well find his place in history somewhere among Hoover and Harding. That being said, America has to make a crucial decision right now about the our future stability. If we choose the path of hunting desperately for any reason to impeach every unpopular president (and at some point virtually every president is destined to fail in some aspect and become at least mildly unpopular) then America will never again hold a steady course in any direction for an appreciable length of time, and will be crippled of any ability to progress in any direction. We will become like some African or South American nations which are prone to radical political shifts and even revolutions through the overzealous use of the peaceful revolution option provided by our impeachment process. And lest we forget, the mumurs of impeachment for Bush were beginning even before he took the oath of office for the first time. This man was destined to be targeted for impeachment the minute he became unpopular for any reason at all. God forgive me for saying it, but just this once I can be thankful that both houses and the oval office are in one party's hands, because if it were not so, the democrats are clearly prepared to follow the disgusting example set by their rivals during the Lewinsky hype and take America down a horrible path.
It is also important to look at something that Bill Clinton was not impeached for, or even nearly impeached for, since of course my whole point is about what not to impeach. Bill Clinton grossly overstated the deaths of Kosovar Albanians to take us to war there. His state department issued the highest estimate of all given- first 100,000 then 500,000.
If I may quote from Wikipedia to reveal the facts:

The New York Times reported, "On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead[13]." However, the numbers given by Clinton and his administration have been proven false. The official NATO body count of the events in Kosovo was 2,788 (not all of them were war crimes victims)

Clinton called it genocide, but the ICTY did not charge Milosevic with genocide. NATO admits that it killed, at most, 1500 innocent Albanians by mistake. NATO may have killed more people than Milosevic!
This is important. Bill Clinton took us to war under false pretenses, in persuit of a flawed retro-cold-war strategy, with horrible results. Never the less, there can be very little question that he was trying, in his own inept way, to do what was best for America and the global community, and impeachment was never seriously considered. This shows the petty political nature of both his impeachment and the murmurings of a Bush impeachment.
I reitterate: Impeachment on the grounds of failure is neither constitutional nor good for America, even where technical justification may exist.

Because of our access via the No-Fly zones and our will to enforce provisions in the terms of surrender, Saddam Hussein was NO threat to the United States. He could not make a move without us being all over him. So the very idea of WMD being in his possession was simply preposterous to begin with.

Why then did he expell inspectors, and do so with impugnity if in fact A. He was unarmed, and B. our will was inexorably sufficient to check any threat from him?

I know sometimes the truth ain't sexy as reality, but for the record, he and the inspectors destroyed those weapons that the west gave him, after Desert Storm. Scott Ritter and other credible sources determine that by 1998 Iraq was clean of any viable WMD.

Scott Ritter said the following in 1998 when Saddam singled him out for expulsion. en.wikipedia.org...

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program

Bill Clinton said the following in February of 1998 regarding Iraqi WMD

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program

Look into the fact that Saddam switched his oil currency to the Euro in 2000. That's the best place to start for a rational and plausible REAL explanation for the invasion (Third phase of the Gulf War). The other place to look is straight into PNAC. There you will find your final reason.

A double edged sword at best. Could that be why France and Germany were so hell bent on protecting him? We must remember that all competition is in effect war of a sort. The global economy is a war zone. Our economy is tied to our security. It is not necessarily a bad thing to oppose somebody who is bad for our economy. Afterall, none of Bush's enemies are in a great big rush to accept how wrong France and Germany were for supporting an evil man just because he was good for their economies.
Now once again we come to the overwhelming question of this issue, because there is no doubt in anyone's mind that neo-conservatives and the PNAC are extremely influential in this administration: Was this war undertaken with the best interest of the United States in mind? The PNAC, for all their faults, are an organizaton supremely concerned with the security and prosperity of the USA. If George W. Bush was trying to do the right thing for America, then impeachment is a horrible idea, even if his policy was in error or failed.
As I am defending this point so steadfastly let me remind the audience that I am merely seeking to uphold an under represented viewpoint here and encourage inspection of the issue from all sides. I am by no means a George Bush apologist. Never the less, I believe in the points that I make. I believe that the new partisan penchant for impeachment is detrimental to America. I believe that Saddam Hussien has been a sworn enemy of the US ever since 1991 when we finally drew the line on what we would suffer from our former pawn. I believe that he failed to prove disarmament and that this strongly suggests failure to disarm. I believe that Saddam was in a mutually supportive relationship with certain European rivals of the United States, each side doing wrong in order to help the other undermine the future of the United States. I believe that it is probable that George Bush and his PNAC backers/masters (whichever they may be) were making an honest effort to do the right thing for America's future security, not only vis a vis Iraq itself, but vis a vis the ressurgenence of Russian and Chinese influence and military backing in Iran, which is highly remeniscent of the cold war. And before we blame the new Cold War on Bush, let us remember that Mikhail Gorbachev has openly criticized Bill Clinton for "attempting to reverse the strategies that ended the cold war", and "wasting the years since the end of the cold war".

If you think Dubya has ever given you or me an ounce of thought, I got some beachfront property for ya.

While unlike Clinton, he does not even pretend to "feel our pain", there is still a very real question as to his motives, not so easily dismissed as his enemies may like. Is he a rich scumbag with a lot of rich scumbag friends? Hell yes. Do they get to remain rich scumbags if America goes to hell in a hand basket? Hell no. I contend that George Bush, like Richard Nixon, is a dirty no good SOB who has lied and conived in every concievable way to ensure the mutual interests of the United States and of course many powerful and often unscrupulous individuals whose fates are directly tied to that of the United States. I'd prefer that we were lead by a common man who thought primarily about the interests of other common men, but since we appear to be hopelessly stuck under the rule of an aristocratic good 'ol boys club from Yale, we should at least stick a man who tries to act in the interest of our country, until a better man for the job comes along.

Causing the death and destruction on the scales Bush is tipping, based on outright LIES, should be punishable.
If you lost someone you loved dearly b/c he/she believed in lie, how would you feel?

I'm not sure, because I've lost only friends, not family, and most of them only wounded. What I can tell you is that if I felt like making the grevious mistake of undermining the potency and stability of American government for the next several centuries, then my feelings on that subject would be dangerous and intellectually bankrupt.


We're still friends and we still both hate Bush, but I think we just found out why I call myself a conservative. Now let's get you some bandages and go have a beer . lol

Well, there's a show-stopper if I've ever seen one.

Who do you work for, the Encyclopedia Brittanica?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Well, there's a show-stopper if I've ever seen one.

Who do you work for, the Encyclopedia Brittanica?

Work for? I wrote the whole thing.

Actually I just rifled through Wikipedia for about 40 minutes.

I know it's an ugly position to take, especially since I'm a very independent person, but I think to a certain extent the global political situation is humanity's Frankenstein and that at this point we need a certain amount of government protection, because without our own government, we necessarily become subject to other governments.
Some would tell me that he who surrenders liberty for safety deserves neither, but I submit that this is double edged, because to oppose sufficient government powers to protect us is in fact to surrender your liberty to a foreign power in exchange for safety from your own government.

There hasn't been a time when a nation was under the threat of being absorbed by another nation. In the beginning of this nation, we struggled to break away from one while having to be strong enough to maintain our own independence. Even then, the individual had unalienable rights. Today, it isn't the threat of other nations overwhelming us that threatens these rights, but what the industrial age has done to our financial independence. Because of the commercial entanglements the average human has with the U.S. Inc., commercial law has overridden our constitutional law.

We might be beating the same drum by friend. I'm not saying we'd be invaded if we weakened our government too much. I'm saying that others would press their advantage over our weakened government to gain greater control of the global economy that we are so horribly entangled with in order to take what we now have without ever setting foot on American soil.

This goes back to my point that even if the war was in some way motivated by the transition to the Euro it isn't automatically wrong. Afterall the Europeans were supporting an evil man in order to grab prosperity for themselves at our expense. Of course we wouldn't have it to begin with if we hadn't supported him and other evil men first, but that, as you point out, is part of economics over-riding law. We answer, first and foremost, not to direct oppression or to the social contract of our nation, but to the reality that our lives as we know them are dominated by a rather brutual economic system.

It's a kill or be starved world. It really blows.